A snowball effect: the continued propagation of bad history in Confederate History Month in Va.

As Kevin pointed out in a post yesterday, the S.C.V. camp in Harrisonburg/Rockingham County placed a proclamation in the Harrisonburg Daily New Record. Rockingham isn’t my home county, but I do have ancestry (including one third great grandfather in Co. A of the 58th Virginia Militia, and several cousins in other units formed in Rockingham County) from there and I know enough to be aware of the problems in the wording of the proclamation in regard to local history. Forget the rhetorical pitch (which is bad enough), I’m going after the attempt to revise the actual history of Rockingham County and it’s citizens in the Civil War. Yes, you heard that right, revisionists history by Confederate celebrationists.

First, let’s talk about the vote for secession and Rockingham County’s delegates to the convention. All three delegates – Samuel A. Coffman, Algernon S. Gray, and John Francis Lewis – voted initially against secession on April 4. On the second vote on April 17, Coffman voted for it, but Gray voted initially against it and then changed his vote. At one point, Gray even made a pitch for the Union that brought the delegation to tears. Lewis, on the other hand, voted against it again. It was no slam dunk for the Confederacy on the part of Rockingham’s delegates. Of course, you won’t know the complicated details behind the votes of Rockingham’s delegates by reading the proclamation. After all, they want you to focus on all the “good stuff” related to Rockingham’s part in the Confederacy.

Second, you have that complicated matter with the second “Whereas”…

upheld her rights as specified in her Constitution, and her ratification of the Constitution of these United States, with the overwhelming support of her citizens by vote, withdrew from the Union on 17 April 1861

Really? While it is true that the secession convention moved to secede on April 17, the citizens had not been given the opportunity to decide yet. In fact, that vote didn’t come until May 23. Of course, if you look at Virginia’s actions prior to the 23rd, did the vote/voice of the citizens really matter? Furthermore, when you understand the measures of coercion used in the referendum, you begin to realize that “overwhelming” might be pushing the envelope when it comes to defining the support of Virginia’s citizens, most especially those in Rockingham County and the Valley.

Sure, many citizens in Rockingham County supported the Confederacy, but let’s see a little more honesty. All 23,500 were not among the supporters. Elder John Kline surely wasn’t. What about the nearly 250 citizens of Rockingham County who applied for a Loyalist Claim? What about those who didn’t but are listed in those Loyalist Claims as having been among the local unconditional Unionists? What about those Rockingham folks like Jacob P. Kyger who ended up wearing blue? What about the 1,163 men who were age-eligible and aren’t on any muster rolls for the Confederacy?

As I mentioned in my comment to Kevin’s post, another problem is that of the 3,000 men who did wear gray, the S.C.V. camp’s proclamation fails to grapple with the nature of service of all of these men. Men in the militia did not enlist, but were “activated” (some considered themselves conscripted, even before the first Confederate Conscription Act). When Jackson disbanded the militia in the Valley in ’62 (in order to bring more men into the ranks of the regular army), how many did not enlist in other units, but sought exemptions from military service? Furthermore, of those in the regular army, how many were conscripts, forced to serve… and did not believe in the objectives of the Confederacy? How many deserted and remained away from the army? How many disaffected and disillusioned Confederates can be counted among those 3,000? How many used the reserves as a means to stay out of the regular army, even when the third Conscription Act called for all men between the ages of 17-50? How many of the 3,000 from 4.163 had no interests in the Confederacy or became disgruntled with it in a year, two, or even three? Doesn’t matter… they don’t want us to know that… it’s bad for “Confederate PR.”

What about all those free blacks and slaves who supported the Confederacy? Can they give names? Are they just suggesting what they do based on the story of the slave “Fanny“, and forgetting that even though she aided Confederate wounded, she “left for freedom with Sheridan’s army in 1864″? Even if the slaves and free blacks can’t be named, name the incidents in which they gave support. Even so, can they give the names of those slaves who left Rockingham when afforded the opportunity by Union troops? Can they list the names of the free blacks who were forced into the service of the Confederacy? Why don’t they make an equal effort to recognize those people who were forced? After all, didn’t they make the Confederate war machine work a little more smoothly?

You won’t find the answers in this proclamation, because they don’t want you to think about those people. They just want you to think that the people of Rockingham County were good Confederates by default…

Forget the Unionists, forget the leave-aloners, forget the slaves and free blacks who had no interest in the Confederacy, forget those who became fed-up with the Confederacy, even after they had initially been among those enthusiastic to enlist. It’s Confederate History Month, so forget everything else.

I keep reading all of these historically-slanted proclamations and I can’t defend these people anymore. Why is it so hard to admit the CSA’s faults? They can’t think we are that stupid. It’s no secret I’m guilty of hero worship at times w/ General Jackson, but even I can admit the ills of racism that defined the cause he defended. Hell I do that now with the Founding Fathers in my new area of study. Admit the truth (at times the UGLY truth) and people will at least respect you for it. I keep thinking about the unrepentant teenager who defended his poor behavior by saying “Well at least I wasn’t as bad as that guy.”

I should add that it is more than just admitting to the bad OR the bad as we see it through our eyes today. It’s being historically responsible and not embellishing or covering-up history in the name of making one aspect sound all that much better. I find the efforts of those who make these proclamations counterproductive to their intent.

I think we are looking at this wrong. During Black History Month; do we demand that any white person who supported the Civil Rights Movement get mentioned or those who quietly or violently opposed it??? Not that I have seen, so why all the Outrage and the Micro dissection of these Confederate History Month Proclamations? Is it because many of us who have History degrees and Teach History want a full and complete story told? If so we need to start a Loyal to the Union Month and talk about the folks who were in the South but were anti slave or pro-north I personally feel the outcry in the CW blogosphere is disingenuous; We all know what CW History has been about for years and this year is no different, it is about the men who wore the Gray, Moonlight and Magnolias, Southern Belles and Battle Reenactments. It is narrow in focus and its intent had never been to be inclusive.
Well that is my 2 cents and I set back and listen to the storm.

In the second to last sentence, you say that it is about those who wore the Gray, Moonlight and Magnolias, Southern Belles, and Battle Reenactments. No, that’s not what this is about. All that entails a great deal of embellishment and/or masking of the full details about what was the history of Virginia in context with its place in the Confederacy. To deliver history so irresponsibly, as these proclamations have, THAT is disingenuous. Furthermore, it’s obvious that the tangling of contemporary theory about current opinions of government is getting twisted in the presentation of this history (the other day’s post about comparing the modern tea party movement with the reasons why Confederates fought is a fine example).

Look at a number of points I made in my post. As I stated, the proclamation suggests that the people of Rockingham County were all supportive of the Confederacy… “Rockingham County supported the War through the actions of her citizens, numbering some 23,500, both in the military and on the home front.” Were some supportive? Absolutely. But the manner in which that was worded while playing the numbers begins to suggest something that wasn’t at all the case. All of the county’s citizens did not support the Confederacy. I know this to be a fact. Likewise, even the vote by delegates on secession has a much greater story to it and they didn’t plunge into the Confederacy with arms wide open.

Even if we narrow our focus down to the 3,000 Rockingham County men who happened to wear gray, it gets hugely complicated. If we are focusing on sacrifice, valor, courage, etc., go for it. I fully believe that this is something to be understood and appreciated. But things get really difficult when a standardized “cause” is integrated in order to explain why ALL those 3,000 were wearing gray. It’s not that simple.

I agree it is very complicated issue. For myself I just want to focus on the men who fought their sacrifice, valor and courage. One thing I know for sure no matter how broad a net is cast during Confederate History month someone somewhere will be put out about it.
I really think what you and Kevin want is a Civil War History and Heritage Month instead of a Confederate History Month. I believe the term Confederate History is quite narrow in focus instead of what you want it to mean and cover. The CWH&H Month would be more accurate to what you’re wanting.
Bottom line is the SCV is not going to change to please you or me. They like the Moonlight and Magnolias too much.

I’m not looking for the SCV to change, nor am I fooling myself that anything I’m writing here is going to change the path they are on. I write to voice my thoughts, and hopefully make it obvious that there is poor history being propagated by all of this. If someone listens and they change their position, great. Whether or not it has an impact in individuals who read these post, in most cases, we probably won’t know. Simply stated… these are arguments for more responsible stewardship of our history and heritage. The steady dose of mis-history is a disservice to the living and dead alike.

Will, Since you mention the Rockingham Rebellion, I thought you might like to see that I have been tracing that illusive character, Gillespie. You can see three posts about him, here, here, and here. I’ve also found something else that will make for an excellent addition. Hopefully, I can get this into a full-blown article for publication in the near future.

Regarding the referendum on secession, you write “if you look at Virginia’s actions prior to the 23rd, did the vote/voice of the citizens really matter?” This fascinates me: what was the thinking of the political leadership in Virginia by saying that the act of secession was contingent on a future vote but behaving like that vote didn’t matter?

I’m not quite sure why they made secession contingent on the referendum when, clearly, the wheels were in motion in Virginia for war prior to the vote of the people. It’s almost as if the Wise affair (in moving on Harpers Ferry and Norfolk without Letcher’s permission) was a precursor of what was to follow immediately thereafter. Sounds like it really was a case of being easier to ask for forgiveness than ask permission.

John Heatwole, who compiled oral histories and wrote several books, told a story about the secession vote in Rockingham County. Some voters at the Mount Crawford polling place were forced at gunpoint to vote to secede. I don’t know if that was an isolated incident – if it’s true – or if it also happened in other places.

That’s correct, Dan. John did a fabulous job in documenting various aspects of the history of the area. Wish he was still around.

Anyway, the Mount Crawford incident was probably one of the most famous, but I think a few more have been found in the Loyalist Claims for Rockingham County. I know I found a number of instances for Page County in the Loyalist Claims and the local newspapers from the 1910s and 1920s.

Some “heritage” organizations have now stooped so low as to attempt to undermine the legacy of the United States Colored Troops. I mean, we haven’t even fully come to grips with this legacy and these people are trying to trash the “bad” blacks for not being like the “good” blacks (i.e. the legions and legions of Black Confederates).

That’s sad. When I found out that at least one slave from my home county went off to join the USCT, I spent a great deal of time trying to piece his story together. I just found it troubling that, at no point in time, had there been any mention of him or the free blacks and slaves of Page County in any of books focused on the county. The USCT has a very interesting history, but I’m fascinated with the way the stories of the individual soldiers from counties throughout the South can and should be developed for inclusion in local history.

Robert: Thank you very much for your efforts at showing that the South was not monolithici. It is very nice to see that the myth of the “Solid South” is being shown for the falsehood it is. There was plenty of dissension in 1861 and it continued through the war. Algernon Gray was run out of Harrisonburg in June of 1864 because they had cared for Union wounded and Union officers used his home as HQ early that month when Hunter passed through. After the murder of Elder John Kline, the word was “Colonel Gray next…” After passing through Rockingham, Jed Hotchkiss wrote his wife, “the people there speak bitterly of [Algernon] & Robert Gray — say they shall bring them to an account for the same.” The Gray’s did not want to leave but ultimately family members convinced them that their lives depended on it so they went to Maryland. There are also accounts of Valley Unionists whom Imboden had impressed into the Valley Reserves for the Battle of Piedmont who were found dying on the battlefield by U.S. soldiers after the combat ended. Although dying, these Unionists (From the Valley) were heartbroken that they had fought against the “Old Flag.” It seems that a few prisoners were paroled after the battle under the same grounds although the Staunton Newspaper went to great lengths to refute this saying the area was too patriotic (or some like term) for such to have occurred. Unionists were not treated well both during and after the war. I have an account of a woman in New Market who was bothered by the KKK in the post war years because she had cared for Union wounded. Being a minority, it is easy to see how the Unionists did not speak out much about their views and roles during the post war years. They chose to go along with their lives and avoid further strife after four years of war. We owe it to them to make sure their story is told.

Thanks for your comment and some excellent examples, Scott. Those Unionists in gray are perfect examples of how “celebrating” the “common Confederate soldier” can be quite complicated, and ultimately lead to a telling of lies when it comes to standardized “remembrance”.

It sounds like we need to get together sometime and chat about the Unionists in the Valley. Might make for a great tour :-)

Not sure if you know, but my masters thesis in history focused on Unionism and disaffected and disillusioned Confederates in Page County. Since then, I’ve been branching out throughout the Valley in pursuit of similar stories.

The proclamation of observances and holidays are political acts. They reflect the politics of those in power and their aims. Confederate History Month is no different.

Black chattel slavery was a defining factor in the development of the US economy and nation. It was important to the primitive accumulation of wealth, but at the same time was a brake on increasing labor productivity. The slave had no incentive for productive labor and slavemaster had no incentive beyond greater luxury. The defeat of the Confederacy, the defenders of this system, was key to the emergence of the US as a modern nation and world power. A Confederate victory in the Civil War would only have led to the North American continent becoming (similairly to Canada) a colonial possession of a European power.

I agree with black protesters of the Rebel flag against those who defend it as “heritage”, when they say “Your heritage, is our slavery.” The proponents of CHM cannot and do not address the matter of slavery. It is buried under the myths of the “War Between the States.” This war was in fact an insurrection against the inevitable modernization of a nation.

Thanks for your comment, but please focus on the subject matter of the post. My focus was on the SCV camp’s proclamation for CHM and the problem with their approach to the history of Rockingham County and its people in the war.

Another point just came to me. Black History Month was observed by a wide number of black long before it became popular in the 1960s. BHM is decades old. When I was a kid in the 1950s/1960s there no instructions on Black History in our school systems. What I learned, like other blacks at the time, about black history was in the library on my own. BHM was to encourage such efforts amongst black youth.

With the rise of the civil rights and, later, black power movement came student demands for black history instructions in our schools. The powers-that-be conceded to this demand in part with black studies and observance of BHM.

Again it was a political decision. The increased attempts to popularize the Confederacy was also a political response to black political pressures. For example, Southern state governments reintroduced the Rebel emblem as a component of their state flags.

Politics reflect social conflict within society. In general, for blacks the emblems of the Confedaracy represent slavery, the KKK terror, etc. For the segrgationists these emblems represent upholding the status qou.

Think about the premise of you post: The SCV is to be faulted for not mentioning Rockingham Unionists or reluctant Confederates. Really? It is, after all, the SCV’s declaration of Confederate History Month, not Rockingham Civil War History Month, or Rockingham Unionist History Month. For that matter, you could get together with like-minded folks in Rockingham and issue your own declaration of Rockingham Unionist History Month, and remind folks about the plight of Rockingham Unionists during the war.

Thanks for your comment. Actually, I ended up, for lack of another way to explain it, splitting my premise and thereby compromised the point I was trying to make.

Ultimately, what is Confederate history in Rockingham County? In the end, the moonlight and magnolias focus tells us a very specific portion that doesn’t give us all that we need to know to understand a people at war. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out that many in the county supported the Confederacy. We can appreciate the fact that some were of the mind that they were defending hearth and home. At the same time, however, the reality is that many in the county suffered under the oppression of that Confederate sentiment, white and black. Confederate history itself has more than one side, and the proclamation made by the SCV camp suggested one picture alone.

Really, I’d prefer not to see a Confederate History Month… or a Southern Unionist History Month. I’d much rather see a Rockingham Civil War History Month that tells us all that we need to know about the people of the county in this crisis.

Nice site–ran across it googling an interest of mine–Germans in Appalachia (“PA Dutch” focus) Specifically, got here in a roundabout way through an article (VMHB 111:1 2003) on Jackson’s execution of three Valley soldiers convicted of desertion–Layman, Roadcap, Rogers– the first two obviously, to me, of German and probably anabaptist (Dunker, Mennonite) bacground. It was a good article but there was no discussion of ethnicity and religion, which is astonishing/infuriating to me, given Rockingham’s well known historical demography.

Thanks for your comment. Yes, the central Shenandoah Valley is rich in German heritage, and its gradual merger with English heritage makes for an interesting study, especially when we bring it all up to the Civil War. Browse the blog a bit. When I concentrate on the Valley, I often make connections with German heritage.

[…] mention of Rockingham County, Virginia’s delegates to the Virginia Secession Convention in this post the other day, I thought it might be of interest to readers to know a little more about one of […]